8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 12:41PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Oh would you give over. The medical council guidelines are made with the current laws at the forefront. The guidelines reflect the constitution.

Yes. And the law came in after Savita.

9 days after the introduction of the legislation in the case you mention (dunno if the new guidelines where in place at the time). She says the hospital didn't want to be the first one's up. That's hardly a commentary on the 8th.

No need for the risk to be imminent? No need for the risk to actually be one that must transpire? Just one of substance (as opposed to spurious)

If there was a known defined threat to the health of the woman I absolutely believe she should be offered a termination at any point of her pregnancy.

Risk of threat to health. Left with the woman or with the doctors. Let's suppose the risk is 5%? Or would you suggest that be defined too?

If that was to occur after 23 weeks it would result in an early delivery of a baby who would be given the best care possible. There would be no full term abortions like you're trying to imply.

Fair enough. Whatever about the risk to the prematurely delivered baby.

KeyRead6 · 17-05-2018 12:42PM

Hello everyone. I personally believe the abortion laws in Ireland should be the same as they are in the UAE. Unfortunately, the YES vote or the NO vote in the upcoming referendum will not facilitate this.

Abortion in the UAE is a crime with two exceptions: if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or if there is evidence that the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive.

Currently in Ireland the life of an expecting mothers is protected by The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which allows abortions when a mother’s life is at risk, including by suicide.

By voting NO I do not allow women to have an abortion here in Ireland in a case where the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive. I believe women in Ireland should have this right.

If I vote YES I am saying it is ok to remove a growing baby from its life support (the womb). I believe every individual has the right to make their own decision regarding ‘is life is worth living?’. Neither you nor I have the right to decide that for anyone else.

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening.

I believe that life starts following successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus and that we should strive to protect it. Looking forward to a logical discussion.

freshpopcorn · 17-05-2018 12:42PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You should inform him that they're a hardline "Christian" (Catholic with, I think, 1 token Prod) group who basically want to turn Ireland into a 193s-1950s style theocracy.

Whose funding is entirely opaque even though it has charitable status.

Which campaigns politically even though it has charitable status and other charities have been prevented from so much as hosting a mural.

Whose "patrons" write regular columns in the media attacking homosexuality, contraception, surrogacy, single parents, adoption by non-married or gay couples, non-Cathlic education, or any move towards a more secular and equal society, etc. as well as abortion of course

Who play down and minimise the abuses of the Catholic Church in their statements and columns at ever opportunity

Whose patron David Quinn supported a campaign stating "every child needs its father and mother" but has adopted two children himself from overseas.

Who opposed the referendum to give born children specific rights in the constitution - how's that for hypocrisy?

He's very a la carte tough in life. He really picks things to suit him if you know what I mean but he can have something sold to him. If there's something on the TV in the next week and the Yes side has somebody strong on. There's a good chance he'd vote Yes.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2018 12:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I for one, wouldn't want to be in the canteen of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists when Boylan and Monaghan meet.

Monaghan was practicing when my eldest was born, so 23 years ago?

He wasn't a newbie then, either, he'd been practicing long enough for my wife to be warned to stay the f*** away from him.

A quick Google says he graduated in 1976, so probably born around 1950 and now pushing 70. I don't think Boylan will be running into him much.

erica74 · 17-05-2018 12:47PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

If I vote YES I am saying it is ok to remove a growing baby from its life support (the womb). I believe every individual has the right to make their own decision regarding ‘is life is worth living?’. Neither you nor I have the right to decide that for anyone else.

We are not incubators.

KeyRead6 wrote: »

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening.

So force women and girls to carry their rapist's baby?

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 12:47PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes. And the law came in after Savita.

9 days after the introduction of the legislation in the case you mention (dunno if the new guidelines where in place at the time). She says the hospital didn't want to be the first one's up. That's hardly a commentary on the 8th.

It still happened. One woman dying was too much.
It was a whole 2 years after Savita died. There was no excuse it shouldn't have happened. But it did. Again.

No need for the risk to be imminent? No need for the risk to actually be one that must transpire? Just one of substance (as opposed to spurious)

Risk of threat to health. Left with the woman or with the doctors. Let's suppose the risk is 5%? Or would you suggest that be defined too?

And what woman do you know that would abort a healthy, wanted pregnancy because there was a 5% risk to her health?
I'll help you. None.
Women are not the murdering monsters you are so keen to turn us into.
If a woman and her doctor agree that there is a significant risk to her health then I fully support a decision to terminate.
We're talking cancer treatments, risk of disability, epileptic women, diabetic women here.
Not women who broke a nail or has a headache or whatever other ailment you perceive to be your 5% risk.

Neyite · 17-05-2018 12:48PM

Sheeps wrote: »

While I'm really looking for a very emotionless logical reason I don't feel like I'm going to get one from either side.

I'm voting yes because it affects all healthcare of any woman or child that is post-puberty and pre-menopause. The 8th has shaped hospital policy and procedures in so many areas, you wouldn't even think of, such as ophthalmology or cancer treatment.

Sheeps wrote: »

I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

Someone must though. At the moment it's the state, and they aren't doing a decent job if legislating for it.

Sheeps wrote: »

If I vote yes it will most likely be along the same reasons that they've legalised prostitution in the Netherlands. Not because everyone agrees with it, or because of any moral reason, but because it's a reality and we may better off taking a progressive stance in assisting those who rely on it or find themselves in that situation rather than trying to fight it.

This is my view also. I feel that it needs to be legalised in order to effectively and safely manage the process, and to hopefully reduce the need for abortion overall in our country by also putting in initiatives of increased sexual health education, affordable contraception, and societal supports for women who are having a crisis pregnancy. Exporting abortion or importing secret ones harms women.

I don't want anyone to die or suffer life-changing ill health if it is medically preventable, it's that simple.

gmisk · 17-05-2018 12:49PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening.

I honestly have no idea where to start.
First of all welcome to boards.ie....yet another new member from the No side....shock that....

So you would force a 12 year old who had been raped to carry a baby to term?
I am sure that 12 year old child would be delighted that you think the person that did that to her should stay in jail for a bit longer. Do you honestly think that will stop things like this from happening?

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 12:50PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

Hello everyone. I personally believe the abortion laws in Ireland should be the same as they are in the UAE. Unfortunately, the YES vote or the NO vote in the upcoming referendum will not facilitate this.

Abortion in the UAE is a crime with two exceptions: if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or if there is evidence that the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive.

Currently in Ireland the life of an expecting mothers is protected by The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which allows abortions when a mother’s life is at risk, including by suicide.

By voting NO I do not allow women to have an abortion here in Ireland in a case where the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive. I believe women in Ireland should have this right.

If I vote YES I am saying it is ok to remove a growing baby from its life support (the womb). I believe every individual has the right to make their own decision regarding ‘is life is worth living?’. Neither you nor I have the right to decide that for anyone else.

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening.

I believe that life starts following successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus and that we should strive to protect it. Looking forward to a logical discussion.

Do you accept that forcing motherhood on an unwilling woman, who does not want a child to the point that she'd have a termination, is a good candidate to give a child a stable, loving upbringing?
Do you think its in the best interests of innocent babies to be put into that situation?

wexie · 17-05-2018 12:52PM

erica74 wrote: »

So force women and girls to carry their rapist's baby?

no no, apparently by changing the penalties and enforcing the law we can just stop rape from happening altogether so we won't have to worry about that.

Wonder how that's working out in the UAE...

:rolleyes:

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 17-05-2018 12:54PM

kylith wrote: »

Their remit is to promote religion. How are they promoting religion here?

They're promoting the moral stance of the Catholic Church, which is part of their raison d'etre. But I think you know this.

Mr. CooL ICE · 17-05-2018 12:54PM

gmisk wrote: »

First of all welcome to boards.ie....yet another new member from the No side....shock that....

Mod: These kind of sarky remarks add nothing to discussion. No more of this.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 12:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Monaghan was practicing when my eldest was born, so 23 years ago?

He wasn't a newbie then, either, he'd been practicing long enough for my wife to be warned to stay the f*** away from him.

A quick Google says he graduated in 1976, so probably born around 1950 and now pushing 70. I don't think Boylan will be running into him much.

30+ years in practice so a recent enough retiree. You can at least say he's see it all.

Not sure about the value of your anecdote.

optogirl · 17-05-2018 12:57PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

Hello everyone. I personally believe the abortion laws in Ireland should be the same as they are in the UAE. Unfortunately, the YES vote or the NO vote in the upcoming referendum will not facilitate this.

Abortion in the UAE is a crime with two exceptions: if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or if there is evidence that the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive.

Currently in Ireland the life of an expecting mothers is protected by The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which allows abortions when a mother’s life is at risk, including by suicide.

By voting NO I do not allow women to have an abortion here in Ireland in a case where the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive. I believe women in Ireland should have this right.

If I vote YES I am saying it is ok to remove a growing baby from its life support (the womb). I believe every individual has the right to make their own decision regarding ‘is life is worth living?’. Neither you nor I have the right to decide that for anyone else.

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening.

I believe that life starts following successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus and that we should strive to protect it. Looking forward to a logical discussion.

This doesn't consider rape victims. I've yet to hear a good response as to what we are to do with a 13 year old girl, pregnant through rape. The idea that we force her to go through a pregnancy -which is damn hard in itself, then delivery (which is fuc*in excruciating) while coping with the fact that they have been sexually violated is just barbaric to me. I understand that for many the idea of abortion is barbaric but surely we need to allow victims to make that decision themselves with their families & GPs.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 01:01PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

It still happened. One woman dying was too much.
It was a whole 2 years after Savita died. There was no excuse it shouldn't have happened. But it did. Again.

9 days after the law was changed. You can hardly blame the 8th for any delay. government had since 1983 to legislate for foreseeable cases.

The key question is whether you think it would happen now. If so, would you be interested in finding out whether it was "a hospital not wanting to be first" or a failure of clinical guidelines or a problem with the law that could be rectified.

Remember, replacing the 8th with an amendment doesn't mean there won't be insufficient law, poor guidelines, failure to follow clinical practices. In such cases, will you be focused on the poor guidelines or will you be blaming the amendment?

Let me guess.

And what woman do you know that would abort a healthy, wanted pregnancy because there was a 5% risk to her health?

A woman who's socio-economic circumstances have changed? If it's good enough reasons for 11 weeks, why can't it be good enough reason at 17 weeks?

wexie · 17-05-2018 01:01PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

Abortion in the UAE is a crime with two exceptions: if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life

How is 'endangers' the mother's life defined? What if the mother is likely to end up disabled by carrying the baby to term?

KeyRead6 wrote: »

The next question is should abortion be available in the case of rape? I don’t believe taking the life of the unborn is the answer here. Allowing abortion in the case of rape and the protection of life are incompatible. We should toughen our laws for convicted rapists to further prevent this from happening..

While I wouldn't disagree that this would be a good thing, it's not going to completely stop rape from happening. What about those that still end up raped and pregnant?

You don't think how being forced to carry the rapists baby to term could be considered cruel and unusual?

17-05-2018 01:07PM

KeyRead6 wrote: »

By voting NO I do not allow women to have an abortion here in Ireland in a case where the baby will be born with fatal deformities and will not survive. I believe women in Ireland should have this right.

If I vote YES I am saying it is ok to remove a growing baby from its life support (the womb). I believe every individual has the right to make their own decision regarding ‘is life is worth living?’. Neither you nor I have the right to decide that for anyone else.
.

women in Ireland should ahve the right to abort where there are Fatal deformities & the feotus will not survive. OK
but, next paragraph, we should not make the decision to abort because we don't have the right to decide that for someone else.

It's a bit hypocritical? surely if you believe everyone is entitled to their own life, & the chance to live it or not, then fatally deformed children should also be afforded that right?
why do you think they deserve less than others?

Oh, & FYI, its 'life support' is a woman.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 17-05-2018 01:10PM

Neyite wrote: »

This is my view also. I feel that it needs to be legalised in order to effectively and safely manage the process, and to hopefully reduce the need for abortion overall in our country by also putting in initiatives of increased sexual health education, affordable contraception, and societal supports for women who are having a crisis pregnancy. Exporting abortion or importing secret ones harms women.

For anyone who's unaware, the ancillary recommendations of the oireachteas report on the 8th include universal free access to contraception and a overhaul of sex education, the wheels are in motion on both fronts. The Irish Pharmacy Union is proposing that they dispense hormonal contraception without a need for prescription, GPs are opposed to that.

These measures will go some way towards minimising abortion by minimising unplanned pregnancies. The other prong would be to minimise the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy being a crisis pregnancy. I don't have kids but I get the impression that affordable childcare is a biggie here.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 01:12PM

wexie wrote: »

You don't think how being forced to carry the rapists baby to term could be considered cruel and unusual?

It's about the price paid to offset the persons pain. And whether you think it's worth it or not.

tigger123 · 17-05-2018 01:14PM

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

For anyone who's unaware, the ancillary recommendations of the oireachteas report on the 8th include universal free access to contraception and a overhaul of sex education, the wheels are in motion on both fronts. The Irish Pharmacy Union is proposing that they dispense hormonal contraception without a need for prescription, GPs are opposed to that.

These measures will go some way towards minimising abortion by minimising unplanned pregnancies. The other prong would be to minimise the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy being a crisis pregnancy. I don't have kids but I get the impression that affordable childcare is a biggie here.

We should be doing everything in our power to reduce the likelihood of women finding themselves in these situations in the first place.

wexie · 17-05-2018 01:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's about the price paid to offset the persons pain. And whether you think it's worth it or not.

I don't really understand what you by this, can you clarify?

Price paid by whom? The rapist?

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 01:14PM

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

For anyone who's unaware, the ancillary recommendations of the oireachteas report on the 8th include universal free access to contraception and a overhaul of sex education, the wheels are in motion on both fronts. The Irish Pharmacy Union is proposing that they dispense hormonal contraception without a need for prescription, GPs are opposed to that.

These measures will go some way towards minimising abortion by minimising unplanned pregnancies. The other prong would be to minimise the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy being a crisis pregnancy. I don't have kids but I get the impression that affordable childcare is a biggie here.

I don't thinks it's because people are unaware. I think that the dog in the street can see it for what it is: a fig leaf nailed onto the end of the legislation for abortion on demand. A sop, a lure, cosmetic.

There was nothing stopping all this coming into being long ago. It didn't happen. It isn't going to happen now.

Sofiztikated · 17-05-2018 01:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's about the price paid to offset the persons pain. And whether you think it's worth it or not.

And shouldn't that decision be left to the person it most affects?

Noone is advocating mandatory abortions. If a woman finds herself pregnant after being raped, should it not be her that decides what happens to her?

Not you making that decision for her.

Hooks Golf Handicap · 17-05-2018 01:16PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-times-poll-repeal-has-large-but-reduced-lead-1.3497830

Latest poll in the Irish Times

Tightening again

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 01:16PM

wexie wrote: »

I don't really understand what you by this, can you clarify?

Price paid by whom? The rapist?

AOB will offer succour to those rape victims who can't proceed to birth. The cost is AOB. The lives of thousands.

You see, it's not about rape victims, it's about abortion for all for any reason. Rape victims and FFA is the wrapping paper.

Sofiztikated · 17-05-2018 01:18PM

tigger123 wrote: »

We should be doing everything in our power to reduce the likelihood of women finding themselves in these situations in the first place.

No argument there.

But if/when they do get into that situation, would you rather support them, or stand there saying "Well, you knew the risks" without knowing their situation?

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 01:18PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And shouldn't that decision be left to the person it most affects?

In the case of rape victims it's certainly arguable. But the mechanism by which that will be granted rape victims is a bit blunter than applying to just rape victims.

The issue is abortion on demand for any reason for everyone. Rape and FFA's are the wrapping paper under which that desire is packaged.

Packaging is extremely important when you want to "sell" a product.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 17-05-2018 01:19PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't thinks it's because people are unaware. I think that the dog in the street can see it for what it is: a fig leaf nailed onto the end of the legislation for abortion on demand. A sop, a lure, cosmetic.

There was nothing stopping all this coming into being long ago. It didn't happen. It isn't going to happen now.

It is happening now. A tender is out for condoms to be dispensed by the government, Bruton is taking on the sex ed curriculum. The same God squad opposing repeal have largely been the cause of the tardiness.

Edit: and a lot of people are very much unaware of the contents of the CA and oireachteas reports actually.

Nettle Soup · 17-05-2018 01:20PM

That large No sign on Ben Bulben is a bad own goal. It makes the No side appears like 1980s Orangemen. The idiots that put it there will regret it in time.

Sofiztikated · 17-05-2018 01:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't thinks it's because people are unaware. I think that the dog in the street can see it for what it is: a fig leaf nailed onto the end of the legislation for abortion on demand. A sop, a lure, cosmetic.

There was nothing stopping all this coming into being long ago. It didn't happen. It isn't going to happen now.

Because any time anything is mentioned to try and help people, there's always someone standing in the way.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments